Why students shouldn't be paid for having good grades
While many say that paying students for having good grades is a fine idea. There are also those who argue against this seemingly radical proposition. Steven Reiss, Ph. D, wrote in an article for the medical magazine Psychology Today "I think incentives can play a role in motivating learning, but only when they are used properly based on knowledge of the individual. We should not incentivize a student who is afraid of failure, for example, because pushing people to do things they fear causes anxiety and lessens motivation to learn. On the other hand, it makes sense to incentivize a student who is bored." This basically means that if a student is afraid of not doing well, having a reward, only given to them if the do well, could in a sense "psych them out".
In an article for the National Education Association, Mary Ellen Flannery stated that only 1 out of 4 Americans agree with the idea of paying students. This statistic proves that being granted approval for the idea would be very difficult. She also says that when a parent does not agree on the amount of reward for their students work, they almost always "rip on teachers". Another reason it is believed that this form of reward is not fair is when a creative work is the project being scored. When students in an art class turn in projects that they drew or in English, turning in a creative story or and paper that requires creativity, Is it really fair to pay students, or not pay them, based on how they used that creativity? Every students mind is different, this means that all of their imaginations come in great variety. Knowing this, is there really any criteria to judge them on? And if there isn't any structured criterion to base them on, how are teachers supposed to know what to pay them on?
Gregg Toppo (writer for USA today) describes paying students for having good grades as nothing more than a bribe, undermining kids' motivation to do high-quality work when they're not being paid. Also in the article, are opinions from multiple educators giving further proof against this idea."It's a strategy that helps only around the edges," says Thomas Toch of the Education Sector, a Washington think tank. Most students in AP classes "are already internally motivated, and the opportunity to earn college credits for passing AP tests is a bigger motivator than small cash awards." Bob Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing stated: "Bribing kids for higher test scores — or paying teachers bounties for their students' work — is similar to giving them steroids," he says. "Short-term performance might improve but the long-term effects can be very damaging."
While many studies have been done to further prove the effectiveness of paying students, a study done in New York, where kids were paid for good test scores, and in Chicago, where they were paid for good grades, achievement didn't budge. This proves that this is not a completely effective plan that has no risk and is guaranteed to work. Because this is so risky and the damages could be very costly, money should be spent on something much less based on hope. Also, paying one student only helps that one student. But, if you take that money and spend it instead on improving a teachers' skills, you can help an entire class of students and many classes to follow.
In an article for the National Education Association, Mary Ellen Flannery stated that only 1 out of 4 Americans agree with the idea of paying students. This statistic proves that being granted approval for the idea would be very difficult. She also says that when a parent does not agree on the amount of reward for their students work, they almost always "rip on teachers". Another reason it is believed that this form of reward is not fair is when a creative work is the project being scored. When students in an art class turn in projects that they drew or in English, turning in a creative story or and paper that requires creativity, Is it really fair to pay students, or not pay them, based on how they used that creativity? Every students mind is different, this means that all of their imaginations come in great variety. Knowing this, is there really any criteria to judge them on? And if there isn't any structured criterion to base them on, how are teachers supposed to know what to pay them on?
Gregg Toppo (writer for USA today) describes paying students for having good grades as nothing more than a bribe, undermining kids' motivation to do high-quality work when they're not being paid. Also in the article, are opinions from multiple educators giving further proof against this idea."It's a strategy that helps only around the edges," says Thomas Toch of the Education Sector, a Washington think tank. Most students in AP classes "are already internally motivated, and the opportunity to earn college credits for passing AP tests is a bigger motivator than small cash awards." Bob Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing stated: "Bribing kids for higher test scores — or paying teachers bounties for their students' work — is similar to giving them steroids," he says. "Short-term performance might improve but the long-term effects can be very damaging."
While many studies have been done to further prove the effectiveness of paying students, a study done in New York, where kids were paid for good test scores, and in Chicago, where they were paid for good grades, achievement didn't budge. This proves that this is not a completely effective plan that has no risk and is guaranteed to work. Because this is so risky and the damages could be very costly, money should be spent on something much less based on hope. Also, paying one student only helps that one student. But, if you take that money and spend it instead on improving a teachers' skills, you can help an entire class of students and many classes to follow.